Misplaced Pages

Talk:AUKUS

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pincrete (talk | contribs) at 04:52, 17 October 2021 (→Request for comment on Background to French Response: text under discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:52, 17 October 2021 by Pincrete (talk | contribs) (→Request for comment on Background to French Response: text under discussion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about AUKUS. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about AUKUS at the Reference desk.
This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
In the newsA news item involving AUKUS was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 18 September 2021.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: South Pacific / British / European / North America / United States
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAustralia: Military history Low‑importance
WikiProject iconAUKUS is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Low-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited Kingdom Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2

EU reaction

We need a big section describing the failure to consult with Europe before announcing the agreement. 85.62.110.149 (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Why? Biden or another Dem president will reneg on the agreement anyway. BilCat (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
How is "Europe" and/or their opinion or approval relevant? This is the business of the Western allies in the Pac Rim. It's not as if small countries like Spain have any influence.50.111.15.21 (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

European countries are not small and have plenty of influence in the world. Spain is not a small country and has a bigger population and economy than australia. The European Union should have been consulted before it was announced.89.204.130.6 (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually - Australia has a GDP per capita of $50,400 as of 2017, while in Spain, the GDP per capita is $38,400 as of 2017.
Spain has a population of 47 million while Australia has 25 million. Trigenibinion (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
You stated, "The European Union *Should* gave been consulted". That is the problem, that's an opinion. In fact, adding this section is purely a matter of opinion, and isn't currently relevant to the main article. If there are instances worthy of note that occur in the future (besides the current passing remarks), and make this section necessary, it can be added, but for now. No.

Willthehelpfuleditor (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the EU should have been consulted. The EU doesn't consult Australia before making agreements with EU or non EU countries, so there is no reason for Australia to do that either. AustraliaRodeo (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

"export of weapons-grade uranium"

Trigenibinion, could you explain your edit that added Using the current American technology implies the export of weapons-grade uranium.? I'm not finding anything in the cited source that supports it (although I might have missed it on my read-through), but more importantly, you placed it in the Chinese response section. What has the sentence to do with the response by China? Schazjmd (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The Australian PM said the submarines would not need to be refueled during its lifetime. The Guardian article states that the French nuclear vessels have to be refueled every 10 years because they use non-weapons-grade uranium. I just put it in the Chinese section because this supports their view. I later added the Malaysian and Indonesian views, so it could also go there. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
So it sounds like you're drawing a conclusion not stated in the source. Schazjmd (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Schazjmd:, it may not be in the source you removed, but it is in the "nuke proliferation" source - both mention that US nuclear boat tech uses HEU (and hence are considered a potenial nonproliferation concern) BrxBrx(talk) 23:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Then it should be cited to the proper source, and placed in a section of the article where it makes sense. Schazjmd (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
UK too: Trigenibinion (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Nuclear fuel isn't "Weapons Grade Material" check this reference Nuclear-powered submarines explained by a nuclear scientist, the statement "Using the current American technology implies the export of weapons-grade uranium" is erroneous and should be removed. Larsobrien lars 03:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

HEU: Trigenibinion (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello Trigenibinion, you need to read up on No original research and also keep in mind WP:3RR as there have been a few reverts now. Not just that but the other stuff about Brazil and the long string of citations about the US/France that seems to have come in and out more than once Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Another reference:
Incoherent policy: Trigenibinion (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Playing with words:
Also removed from Attack-class_submarine#Propulsion, if this decision gets reversed, reinstate there too — IVORK Talk 01:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Look at this: Trigenibinion (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. "What are nuclear-powered submarines, anyway? A guide to Australia's looming military addition". the Guardian. September 16, 2021.
  2. David, Kramer (March 3, 2017). "US approves large export of bomb-grade uranium". doi:10.1063/PT.5.1109 – via physicstoday.scitation.org. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  3. Mehta, Aaron (September 15, 2021). "The US Navy's Nuclear Proliferation Problem".
  4. "What does the Australian submarine deal mean for non-proliferation?". September 17, 2021 – via The Economist.
  5. Dahl, Fredrik (July 5, 2012). "Iran submarine plan may fuel Western nuclear worries" – via www.reuters.com.
  6. "Could AUKUS give Iran a nuclear excuse?". POLITICO.
  7. "Publication". css.ethz.ch.
  8. https://sgs.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/2019-11/philippe-vonhippel-2016.pdf

Image of the Joint Leaders Statement

The joint leaders statement involved what was effectively a conference call between Johnson, Biden, and Morrison, with each of them standing in some form of media room. I have tried to find an image of this, as I think it reasonable to assume both that official photographers for each of the three nations would have documented the event, and as per normal these images will be published under a compatible copyright licence.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find such an image; I was hoping that someone with more experience digging through government websites for this sort of content would be willing to give it a go, as I think it would be an excellent image for the infobox?

BilledMammal (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Is this the image you are looking for? See https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9995539/How-Joe-Biden-Boris-Johnson-Scott-Morrison-failed-mention-China-nuclear-sub-briefing.html Though the source is not considered the most reliable, the image seems to depict what you are describing. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, something like that - but something published under copyright licence that means we can use it BilledMammal (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I checked UK Gov website and could not find picture- their articles about this event were using stock photos of the people, or using a generic image of 10 Downing Street on some articles. :( Joseph2302 (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Map of Indo-Pacific with AUKUS territories

Could someone pull together a map of the Indian and Pacific Oceans, showing the territories of the US, the UK and Australia (so including British Overseas Territories, and the like)? I think it would be helpful to show to the reader that there's quite a bit of territorial involvement in the region, beyond the obvious Australian mainland and Hawaii. David (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Is this the type of map you are looking for? See https://www.pacom.mil/About-USINDOPACOM/USPACOM-Area-of-Responsibility/ Jurisdicta (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I think they are looking for something similar to the map of France's territories and EEZ's, but for Britain, the United States, and Australia? If it exists or can be made, I think it would effectively contextualize the agreement, especially Britain's role in it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, I was thinking along the lines of BilledMammal - EEZs would also be useful/relevant, as the pact covers control of underwater/seabed by the sounds of it. David (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Done, thanks to an excellent SVG created by User:B1mbo; I'm not attached the colours, and have included details on how I altered the SVG so that it shouldn't be a huge effort to change them should someone wish to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks - great work! David (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed there's quite a few US territories and their EEZs missing from the map... Exclusive economic zone of the United States. David (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I've added to your map - first time I've edited a SVG so hopefully it's alright! David (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
All the islands occupied by the UK in the South Atlantic near Antarctica are claimed by Argentina. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Chagos Island is claimed by Mauritius. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Gibraltar is claimed by Spain. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
So? David (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any relevance to it, despite other countries claiming the places they are not a part of the countries claiming it. Next we will be writing that every island in the South China Sea is part of China just because they claim it. AustraliaRodeo (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The UN ruled the UK has no sovereignty over Chagos. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The disputed territories should be colored differently. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone live in Rockall? 178.202.82.89 (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
It does not matter. And 4 similarly distant countries claim it. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Rockall is an uninhabitable Island so I don't see any reason to mark it on the map. AustraliaRodeo (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Wrong because of EEZ. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The map only needs to show the french ones. The other ones aren't relevant.

Background - subsection title French–Australian strategic partnership

@Trigenibinion: Why did you rename "French–Australian submarine deal" back to "French–Australian strategic partnership"? (It had been "Australia–France strategic partnership" before my edit.) What was the strategic partnership? it was a submarine deal between France and Australia. Australia had considered buying submarines from Japan. If Australia had of purchased submarines from Japan would you title it "Japanese–Australian strategic partnership"?--Melbguy05 (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I had added a reference: Trigenibinion (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@Trigenibinion: The reference is "Naval Group-Australia strategic partnership" which is another way of writing "French–Australian submarine deal". Strategic partnership in that context means a business deal and not "French–Australian strategic partnership".--Melbguy05 (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
@Trigenibinion: Please discuss subsection title to avoid an edit war. You continued to edit the article following my reply on the Talk page without commenting. I assumed you did not have an issue with my reply.--Melbguy05 (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
You would know it is not just a deal between a French company and Australia if you just paid attention to the French reaction. You keep trying to diminish the impoirtance of the partnership for France. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
@Trigenibinion: The entire subsection is on the submarine deal. You changed the title here from "Contract for French-built submarines for the Royal Australian Navy" to "Australia-France strategic partnership including conventional French-built submarines for the Royal Australian Navy" which was later refined to "Australia-France strategic partnership". The reference you used was the Strategic Partnering Agreement which is the name of an agreement that "sets out the principles of cooperation" between Naval Group and Australia signed in February 2019. I changed the title to "Naval Group–Australia strategic partnership agreement". I would have preferred a title similar to "Contract for French-built submarines for the Royal Australian Navy". In your edit comments you wrote "Why do you think Europe is so angry?" I don't see how that is relevant to the title of a subsection on a submarine deal. France was deepening its strategic partnership (military relationship) with Australia after signing the submarine deal but the subsection does not contain any information on this.--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Trigenibinion (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
@Trigenibinion: WP:SECTIONHEAD "Section headings should follow all the guidance for article titles" MOS:AT "A title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic". The link you provided is on the submarine contract the "strategic partnership agreement". It is also mentions that France has a "strategic partnership" with Australia. As I discussed above the subsection is on the submarine deal. It has no information on the "strategic partnership" (military relationship) with Australia. If information on the "strategic partnership" was added to the article it would have its subsection with a heading such as "French–Australian strategic partnership" and the article would still have a subsection on the submarine deal with its own heading such as "French–Australian submarine deal" or "Contract for French-built submarines for the Royal Australian Navy".--Melbguy05 (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The point of contention is that it now says "Naval Group-Australia" instead of "French-Australian" as the new reference shows. Trigenibinion (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@Trigenibinion: I can list references for "French-Australian submarine deal" or "France-Australia submarine deal". A section heading the same as an article title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic MOS:AT and indicates what the section is about WP:TITLE. Your reference mentions two topics the submarine deal and the military relationship between France and Australia.--Melbguy05 (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The reference clearly states "Florence Parly, ministre des Armées, et Christopher Pyne, ministre de la défense australienne, ont signé un accord de partenariat stratégique entre Canberra et Paris portant sur la construction de 12 sous-marins". Trigenibinion (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. https://www.naval-group.com/fr/naval-group-signe-laccord-de-partenariat-strategique-avec-laustralie-639
  2. "Naval Group signs the Strategic Partnering Agreement". Naval Group (Press release). 11 February 2019. Retrieved 25 September 2021.
  3. https://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/articles/l-australie-et-la-france-signent-un-contrat-pour-12-sous-marins

Sorting of countries

Should we sort the countries by name so that there is no eurocentrism?

2A01:598:928B:D1B9:1:1:D4B7:C6FB (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done I think it's probably a good idea to have them sorted alphabetically, so that there is no bias like there is at the moment.

AustraliaRodeo (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It was not Eurocentrism. France and China are the other main participants in the affair, and the European countries were put near France because it is a member of the EU and NATO. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

France and European countries are not even located in the indo-pacific region and are not parties to the agreement. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

They are not parties to the agreement, so they are not listed in that section. It is false that France and hence the EU are not located in the Indo-Pacific. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Alleged vandalism by Trigenibinion

Some new editors are undoing good-faith edits under false accusations of vandalism. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

From what I see you tried to introduce eurocentrism and things like the following headers "Comments and responses from the mainly impacted countries". "Comments and responses from other EU and NATO countries". There is no reason to have these headers and just having an International Responses section is appropriate. There is no need to have a section called mainly impacted countries, as so far no countries have actually been impacted by it apart from the three countries in the pact. Europe is also not located in the Indo-Pacific region.

178.202.82.89 (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not try to introduce Eurocentrism, as shown by the fact that the first country listed was China (each section in alphabetical order)
I believe there was a previous excuse of Eurocentrism in order to obfuscate the content, the new organization made explicit why the countries had been listed in that order
The three countries in the pact are not impacted, or I should have written "negatively impacted". A negative impact on France is a negative impact on the EU and NATO, and this is why the section follows. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Special section for European response

Since European and France are significant global players in the indo Pacific region the responses need to be separated from that of other countries. Also in Europe no one cares about Australia as it's small and insignificant in the world so the french response is More important2A01:598:9291:CD9B:1:1:F597:929B (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Australia is at the center of this and the EU is negotiating a free trade deal with Australia. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why Europe needs it's own section. Australia is the 12th largest Economy in the world and 9th highest GDP per Capita, which is higher than most European countries. It may make more sense for a section to put the response from Neighboring countries like New Zealand though.

178.202.82.89 (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

My organization assigns a section to each block, no special case.
I think besides reverse-vandalism, now we have trolling. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Look Europe has 700 million people whereas Australia is basically empty. Europe needs its own section separate from other countries as we are special. US is more important to Europe than Australia anyway and the US is a better ally to EU countries than Australia.

80.187.102.22 (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Europe doesn't need its own section. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be biased so it should not be Eurocentric and the response from European countries should not be considered to be any different from that of non European countries. The article is also about AUSKUS and not Europe or France. 46.114.4.197 (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

AUKUS replaced a partnership between Australia and France, which is a member of the EU and NATO. That is why the countries should not just all be randomly bundled together. It has nothing to do with Eurocentrism. That said, each block should have its own section. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The rest of the world doesn't exist. Anything outside of europe is an illusion.

2A01:598:9291:CD9B:1:1:F597:929B (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that "France" (rather than the EU) needs a separate section. The deal replaced an important deal with France, hence France is an integral part of the event. It also has geopolitical consequences seen the adverse impact on the semi-alliance between France and Australia, the resurgence of the France-led European debate on being able to take up its own security, and the potential impact on internal French politics (seen the upcoming election). As such, it's somewhat different from the somewhat generic diplomatic responses from many other countries. Morgengave (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

France should have it's own page about it's response to AUKUS and not be part of the main AUKUS article. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Page under attack

Another new anonymous user breaking the page. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are calling replying to comments attacking the page.178.202.82.89 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be some trolling on this page, the article is being broken. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems to mostly be people wanting to put the EU and French response in a different section from the rest of the world. AustraliaRodeo (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

No, it seemed to be trolls breaking the page, not people who actually want to structure the content. You on the other hand, seem to be trying to obfuscate it. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Section for Responses from Countries in the Indo-Pacific region

Since countries in the indo-pacific region are the ones most affected by this agreement, we should create a section "Comments and Responses from Indo-Pacific Region countries" and remove the responses to there. 1.157.55.9 (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That would definitely make more sense than the other changes people are making like putting the response from countries not in the region as more important than ones in the region. AustraliaRodeo (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I would dispute the claim of "most affected"; outside the AUKUS nations, I don't believe it is in dispute that the most affected nations are China and France. Further, all the international responses should be presented in the same section as it falls under the broad grouping of "international response" - splitting it will impede navigation and understanding. We also wish to keep the table of contents concise; this means that we cannot reasonably list in it every nation who responded and must either list none or a select few. I believe the later is more useful in helping our readers navigate, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.
I will also note that you have incorrectly classified three countries; neither North Korea nor New Zealand are in the Indo-Pacific, while China (partially) is.
All up, I would ask that you revert your edit while this is under discussion. I will note that we will want to change the "Psuedo-headings" from the origional ";" to standard bold markup, in line with MOS:PSEUDOHEAD. BilledMammal (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
New Zealand is also in the Indo-Pacific region, being a part of Polynesia, having dependencies and also having several islands located in the region. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Separate Page for Responses to AUKUS

Since the responses are taking up over half of the article, probably the responses should be on a standalone page. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a typical technique used on Misplaced Pages to hide content. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
It's definitely a good idea, since as time goes on the initial response to AUKUS becomes less relevant. AustraliaRodeo (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
It's premature to move out content, but at a later stage, that may be useful. Morgengave (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, later the Article should be mainly about AUKUS, with a separate page about the response. Otherwise it becomes cluttered and filled with irrelevant information. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The edit history of this article is filled with bogus excuses to remove content. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I do notice a significant anti-France bias, which I don't get, because the disruption in its relationships with Australia and the US is deemed, at least for now, a significant geopolitical event by most reliable media. Of course, only the future will tell its true significance, but for now, we should treat it as reliable media treat it: as an important subtopic to the nuclear submarine deal. Morgengave (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed a big bias towards European countries, this is probably a result of Europeans editing the article. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
You are deflecting. You seem to have have an agenda. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The article definitely needs some further editing to remove bias towards any country. Which is also why a separate response page is a good idea, rather than people filling it up with the french/european response and trying to write negative comments about Australia. AustraliaRodeo (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I saw nobody attacking Australia. Questioning its government, yes. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
This is interesting. I was wondering why there is such a strong resistance in this article against incorporating/treating the French response part as the reliable media do. I honestly never considered that it may be a sensitive point in Australia. Morgengave (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Australia is ruled by News Corp, they have a bigger problem than the UK and the US. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Your comments seem to be very negative towards Australia and Australians, and Anti Australian. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Being anti-News Corp is being pro-Australian. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
While reliable media may have their own bias, it's not a personal bias from us editors to follow how they report the event. The French response is extensively reported and analyzed by many international media - not just European or French media - and put forward as an important topic linked to the submarine deal. Morgengave (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The agreement is not only about submarines, far too much emphasis is being put on the submarine component of it. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
We all have our views and interpretations, but our personal opinions are irrelevant. Reliable media heavily report on the French response and they find it an important topic; that's what matters. With time, this may change. Morgengave (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
There are plenty of other reports as well and not just about the French Response. AustraliaRodeo (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I never claimed all of the articles are about the French response. That doesn't affect what I am saying. Morgengave (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I think we all need to take a step back and have a quick read of WP:CIVIL, as I feel this section is getting a little heated.
I think it is a little premature to split this article up, as it is far short of the maximum prose length before splitting is advised. Particularly because splitting it up won't resolve the issue that seems to be causing the most issues, which is the relative prominence of the various response; in particular, I believe we will continue to need to cover the responses of France and China in the main article.
Instead, I propose we return to the format of yesterday; we hide all countries, bar China and France, from the table of contents, and put the international responses in a single section. Is this acceptable for now? BilledMammal (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, good idea. Morgengave (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


Different line entirely, create an article for the Aus-French deal & collate responses to the breakdown of that there. Put responses about the Aus-French deal breakdown all into Attack-class submarine, cross link with a section & {{main article}}, but keep AUKUS for the specifics of that pact & Australia's military escalation in the sourthern pacific. With the withdrawal of ambassadors, it appears to have enough individual content to support itself — IVORK Talk 23:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

There aren't many AUKUS details yet, some call it a diversion, I have seen at least two theories. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@Trigenibinion: If you have points to make, state & source them, I have no idea what your comment is in reference to at all. Talk pages are for article improvement, not conjecture & rumours. There's enough details on the new submarine roadmap & countries responding to escalation of Australia's military inventory to justify this article, likewise I feel there's enough backlash/detail to support an Aus-French Submarine deal article — IVORK Talk 00:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I mean I don't think there's enough details to make an AUKUS article without reponses. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@Trigenibinion: That would be true, I'm proposing it be split for reactions to the treaty forming & the Aus-French article have reactions to the breakdown of their treaty as well of details of the plan. While clearly relevant here, the majority of that deal's breakdown should be listed there instead. (I've edited my previous comments for clarity) — IVORK Talk 00:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it is more likely that people search for AUKUS than look at the cancelled submarines, so it would be hiding the reactions. Trigenibinion (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Or we reduce it, this is one treaty. All treaty's get negative reposnses.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

One line summary of articles

The one line summary of articles being posted without any context or details don't really seem sufficient. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Expand the content then according to the source. This is a collaborative effort. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
When you are posting content to the article, it's not really sufficient just to post one line with the title of the article like you did with Kiribati. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Also agree, if content is going to be posted then it should be more than one line and not just the title of the article. AustraliaRodeo (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I went finding the information, stop with your bogus complaints. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Writing a Misplaced Pages article is about more than just pasting a lot of one line headings of articles. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I've just taken a stab at merging some of these single sentence lines, and taking out some of the worst offenders. If others have better organization or prose in mind, feel free to implement it. BSMRD (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You conveniently removed Vietnam's response as well as many of the French reactions. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
We do not need every reaction.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages does not need to save paper and I am not aware of a capacity problem. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
But we do need relevant and useful information WP:NOTEVERYTHING makes that clear.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
What makes things clear is having references to non-propaganda sources explaining the known positions of the different stakeholders. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe I removed a single French response, I simply merged them into relevant groupings. If you look you can see every citation is still in the article. As for Vietnam, one brief sentence saying "don't use nuclear energy for war" is not a noteworthy reaction, if there is more to say we can give them a section, otherwise not much point. You are correct that Misplaced Pages does not have a capacity problem, but it does have a WP:DUE problem. Not every reaction needs it's own line. BSMRD (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
OK, the French content seemed shortened; as for Vietnam, I think not including the position of a country in the region when it is known is unfair. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to restore the Vietnamese line if you'd like, I'm not too hung up on it, though if we could expand it with some more sources that would be ideal. BSMRD (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I will not add it myself because I have been unfairly accused of bad faith. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

EU

Why are Germany and Portugal not in the EU section?Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no EU section. I had organized the non-member responses as follows, but it was immediately reverted by a new editor alleging vandalism:
  • Mainly impacted countries
  • Other EU and NATO countries (like mainly impacted France)
  • Other Five Eyes countries (like the members)
  • Other Indo-Pacific countries
  • Other Asian countries
  • Other comments Trigenibinion (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The section names above are not really suitable, especially the sections called mainly impacted countries and Other Five Eyes countries. Calling them Other Five Eyes countries is also not great.AustraliaRodeo (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Everybody knows France and China are the main losers. This means the EU and NATO are seriously hit. A point has also been made that Canada and New Zealand are not part of AUKUS. Korea and Japan are not in the Indo-Pacific. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Apart from France having had a contract with a French company cancelled, there doesn't actually seem to be any other impact. The article also needs to have a NPOV and not biased towards France or the EU. AustraliaRodeo (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
It is not true there's no other impact. The editing has been dominated these past few days by anti-French bias. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
That's because they are Australian editors who are antifrench and anti European wanting to write negative comments about the french and European countries. 2A01:598:A906:C3A5:1:2:4AD9:7923 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
A username is no guarantee where a user is from. It could be someone championing for their country's submarines even if they are powered by HEU. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
5.2 European Union, that looks like an EU section.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Other five eyes countries would be just Canada and New Zealand, so it's not really suitable for a section, as the other three members of the five eyes would be in other sections. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
It does not matter they are only two. It is a logical grouping according to main commonality. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Let's create a section called colonial countries.80.187.120.237 (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Is that grouping more related to AUKUS than EU or NATO? Trigenibinion (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Colonial countries would include all former and current colonies like Australia new Zealand Canada and India. 2A01:598:A906:C3A5:1:2:4AD9:7923 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority of the Indian population do not descend from colonists. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I see you might be talking about its legal system. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

"Colonial countries", seriously?Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

they have all been or are colonies of other countries so colonial countries would be the correct term to use to describe them46.114.6.234 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Many European countries never had colonies. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
"Colonial countries" is a terrible idea. M.Bitton (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
When was NK a colony? Or the EU (which is not even a country) or Germany?Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Germany had colonies. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
North Korea did not. So is it "countries that were colonies" "counties that had colonies"? This is just a mess of an idea that it totally unfocused. So lets just say "Other countries".Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
The suggestion combined both. I think because the native population in some ex-colonies is now a minority, and that the idea was only floated to make a point. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
As well as countries that have neither had or been colonies. It is a NPOV mess that served no purpose.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
It can also be because of modern France. But the population in their territories are French citizens and offered independence referendums, although in the case of Mayotte it is claimed by Comoros. There are also two atolls that the central government refuses to give up to local control because they are nuclear test waste no-go zones. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
And? I am unsure what point you are trying to make here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I am explaining the point the person who suggested this might have been trying to make. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
And it is a point I disagree with as I am not sure what point it is trying to make, other than that former colonies oppose it whilst former colonial powers agree with it (which as I said may not even be true). As I said it is a wp:npov mess. I have said my piece and there really is no more to be said about this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Nobody in Australia, the US or UK would refer to themselves as a colonial country. The term is also not at all appropriate for describing a group of countries. AustraliaRodeo (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Polynesians have been complaining about the effects of the tests for decades. A book was published in March and it became a huge issue in France (also concerning Algeria). Trigenibinion (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
And? Thes subs are not nuclear armed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
That would not be the Polynesians' main concern. And a submarine can launch nuclear weapons other than ballistic missiles, so the complaint raised on Chinese TV about future possibilities is valid (removed from the article because there was no pointer to the segment). Trigenibinion (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Anti French vandalism

The page needs to be protected to stop anti French/European vandalism. 46.114.6.234 (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@46.114.6.234: You're an IP editor, the user that reverted you is a template editor, increasing the protection level will only sooner block you out. Your claim would need to be backed by substantial sources to be added and overturn the majority, not just be your opinion — IVORK Talk 23:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Protection has already been requested at least twice but the problem was considered to be small. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Its not wp:vandalism, its a content dispute. I note the number of wp:spa IP#s that a cropping up here making the same point. I suggest it stops before we do have protection.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Background to French response

Some background information about French interests in the region is necessary for an ordinary reader to understand the French response to AUKUS. Removing it is therefore not an improvement to the article. Whizz40 (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The content that keeps getting added back in is not relevant to the article and was reverted by several editors. If people want to learn about France they can go to the page about France. It does nothing to help people understand the French Response, other than make the article not have a NPOV. AustraliaRodeo (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
The rationale that AUKUS "is not targeted at the French" is willfully or naively misunderstanding the context. per cites, for the French, security in the Indo-Pacific is an internal security issue. That's a different context from simply a commercial submarine deal being cancelled. The average reader won't know this unless we include it in the article. Whizz40 (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on Background to French Response

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Is the background to the French response relevant to the article? AustraliaRodeo (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

n.b. This appears to be the text being discussed. This note was added after start of RfC by : Pincrete (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes: background information about French interests in the region is necessary for an ordinary reader to understand the French response to AUKUS. Per cites in the article, for the French, security in the Indo-Pacific is an internal issue. That's a different context from simply a commercial submarine deal being cancelled. The average reader won't know this unless we include it in the article. Whizz40 (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC) retrospecyively
  • Yes. I agree with Whizz. Morgengave (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • No: I agree with the reason for the original reversion of the background section that it's "irrelevant, as this is not aimed at the French, nor has it been suggested is is." The information about France given in the background is not relevant to the response, and can be looked up on the page about France. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC) — 178.202.82.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • No: I don't think the background information is relevant, it's not part of or relevant to France's response and similar background information is not being written for any of the other countries responses. The article is also about AUKUS and not about France. The background also introduces bias towards France and other European countries AustraliaRodeo (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC) — AustraliaRodeo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • There is no background given for any of the other countries, which have more citizens than France in the Indo-Pacific region. If this information is going to be part of the France section, then a similiar background should be added to every other country in the region specifying the number of people in the country. New Zealand also has 5 million people which is more than the number of French citizens in the region. 178.202.82.89 (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, except the average reader would know this, i.e. it's general knowledge so it's unnecessary in the article. There's important knowledge to understand the context of the French response that is not general knowledge and it is therefore of benefit to readers to include a short paragraph and image in this article. Whizz40 (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. Yes, I have no problem with the position of the other countries being explained in more detail as long as it is not propaganda. I think removing this content is an example of anti-French bias. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. See WP:PA Many of your recent edits appear to not have a NPOV, have anti-Australian bias and introduce bias towards France and European Countries.AustraliaRodeo (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. See WP:PA I have no problem with Australians but with them being manipulated by media concentration. I also have a problem with sneaky biased editors. I have added content supporting both views (some of it removed). Trigenibinion (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Just saying France also has territories in the region isn't clear enough for the reader to understand what it means. The UK has overseas territories in the region but they are very limited, and not seen as part of the UK. So an average British reader would not understand the French have much more significant territories in the region and that they are seen as part of France. I doubt the average American reader would either. Therefore a significant portion of readers of this article would benefit from a few facts and a map to understand the circumstances that shape the French response to the pact, and its negotiation without their involvement (regardless of the cancellation of the submarine contract). Whizz40 (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • No As I am unsure what we mean, the full history of French activities in the region, a history of the French nuclear program? We only need to know that they are pissed and why. As this is not aimed at the French we should not give an impression (and I think this content does that it is. After all, do we list all the UK's positions or Australias (or indeed the US)?Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Your edit boldly removed context that a number of editors contributed to the article over time. My edit reverted that at which point it should be discussed but you have now unilaterally removed it again. WP:ONUS does not mean that you can do that. This RfC is a sensible process to establish consensus for it's inclusion or not. The context shouldn't be removed until the RfC is complete as your initial bold edit was reverted. Whizz40 (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Not true "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.", it is down to those wanting to include to get consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Also note, as the addition was reverted it was a breach of BRD to reinsert. BRD should have been followed after it was first removed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
That is a blatant misinterpretation of the sequence of events and WP:BRD. Whizz40 (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
It was added (bold) it was reverted (revert), Which part of that am I misrepresenting?Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Your edit boldly removed content that a number of editors contributed to the article over time, i.e. which previously had consensus. That's fine, but my edit reverted that citing BRD at which point it should be discussed. This RfC is a sensible process to establish whether the consensus is for its inclusion or not, i.e. to address WP:ONUS. Following the BRD process, the change, i.e. the removal of the content, should not be done unless the RfC concludes that removal is the consensus. Whizz40 (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
This need to stop now. I removed content it was then down to those who wanted to include to make a case. That is policy, and that is my last word on this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
@Slatersteven:You have been selective with the article history. You started the BRD cycle with this edit. Not as you suggested with this edit. Your removal of text was then reverted and discussion should have taken place. But instead you edit warred it back to your version -- WP:BRD applies to removal or reinstatement, not just removal. Again you've been selective with that. In summary:
  • You've been misleading in your presentation of the chain of events.
  • You've misinterpreted or misquoted WP:BRD
  • And you've ended with "This need to stop now. I removed content it was then down to those who wanted to include to make a case. That is policy, and that is my last word on this" which is incredibly dismissive, immature, and without any factual basis. Mark83 (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
The material had been removed (and readded) before this, it is at that point BRD kicked in, when it was first removed. I have not misquoted WP:BRD, all quotes are just straight copy and pastes. I have said this needs to stop as we are talking about users not content and going round in circles repeating the same stuff over and over again.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, being led here from NPOVN, I think this background information seems important to the reader to understand France's reaction. I think it definitely should be included if the reliable sources mention it in connection with AUKUS, as several of them indeed do. Where the sources talk about France's involvement in the region but not in the context of AUKUS, the argument for including the information from those sources seems less strong (the sources from before AUKUS was announced, from 13 April 2021 and 21 October 2020, clearly fall into this latter category). —2d37 (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    Do RS make this connection, or is it wp:or?Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    "Do RS make this connection, or is it SYNTH?" is, I suppose, a question that should be seen in my comment as well. To expand on my answer several of them indeed do: specifically, the cited Euronews 2021-09-17, BFMTV.com 2021-09-16, Axios 2021-09-19, and RFI.fr 2021-09-21 sources do seem to consider it worthwhile to bring up France's Indo-Pacific presence in the context of AUKUS. Now, 3/4 of these are French or French-based, but here are some RS from AU, UK, and US finding this background information worth mentioning in connection with AUKUS:
    —2d37 (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    The problem is (as I see it) is that beyond saying "France is a Indo-Pacific nation" do they say that AUKUS impact this? What does this have to do with AUKUS?Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • If they do all we need to say is "Another consideration is the protection of Frances overseas possessions", one line is all we need.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    The problem is (as I see it) is that beytong saying "France is a
  • No: It's not relevant. I assume "cooperation established with Australia" in regards to "internal security" is referring to the Australian-French military relationship and possibly intelligence sharing. It implies that France will not cooperate with Australia in the future having atrociously cancelled a submarine deal with this irrevocably harming the relationship. Yet, no source says that France will not co-operate with Australia in future military exercises and/or will not share intelligence. I wasn't aware that France had a co-operation issue with "neighbouring countries" or how neighbouring countries are effected by a submarine deal in which Australia will have a more suitable submarine for the rise of Chinese influence in the area.--Melbguy05 (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes - That a major ally of the 3 participants and permanent member of the UN Secuirty Council was excluded from this is relevant, and the context is very relevant for an understanding of the wider geopolitical and economic issues. Mark83 (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Not at this level of detail. The anon above is correct: "The background is mostly not relevant, there's no need to list the number of French citizens or troops or the countries. It's enough just to say France also has territories in the indo pacific region without including the other irrelevant details."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • No - Not in that much detail, it is relevant to have on Misplaced Pages, but I'm not sure all of it should be included here. Same argument I made in Talk:AUKUS#Separate_Page_for_Responses_to_AUKUS, have the basics covered here, but the main detail under the Australian-French submarine deal page. This is an article on an alliance, explaining in depth the strategic overlay of a country that was negatively impacted by one aspect of the alliance seems like a step too far away from the article subject — IVORK Talk 23:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, briefly as it is impossible to understand the French response here without some background and France is significant in its response and history in the region. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • NO, Beyond the unprecedented recall of Ambassadors (which is buried in a quote with no accompanying RS analysis), very little is likely to remain encyclopedic material, as right now we are regurgitating sensationalized news and heat of the moment statements. It looks more like seeking sources to match a viewpoint than writing an article. Let's see what scholars say 6 months to a year from now, rather than assuming French foreign relations have forever changed over a cancelled business transaction. Slywriter (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on the way to organise the countries in International Responses

What's the best way to organise the countries in the International Responses section that has a NPOV and is not biased towards any country? AustraliaRodeo (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

AustraliaRodeo, Not sure what you mean? What's at dispute here? Generally, simply listing the countries alphabetically (or sometimes chronologically by date of feedback) does a fine job. CaptainEek ⚓ 23:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
CaptainEek That's what we had before but it was reverted, and then people tried putting in all sort of categories and orders including categorising the countries into "Colonial Countries". Which is why I opened the RfC to get comments on the best way to organise it that's not biased and has a NpoV. There's also a few people wanting European countries to have a huge section and ignoring all the other countries responses AustraliaRodeo (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Give prominence to China and France as the "most impacted nations". For other nations, put them in alphabetical order and under the "other" section without headers in the table of contents, though omit responses that provide minimal useful context; an example of this might be Portugal's, which just says that it supports France. Summoned by the bot, but note that I was previously involved in this article and had pre-existing opinions on this questions BilledMammal (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I explained above the logical organization I had developed which AustraliaRodeo immediately reverted alleging vandalism. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • As is, members first, elevate China/France, the rest alphabetical. The other FVEY partners haven't said anything particularly of note to otherwise differentiate them — IVORK Talk 01:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The Agreement hasn't had any impact on France or any of the other countries apart from a contract with France being cancelled, I wouldn't say there are any countries that have actually been impacted by it at the present. Though that might change in the future. AustraliaRodeo (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Alpahbeticaly. But I am unsure why China is not there. The only nations that ae relevant for their own sections are Oz, the UK the USA and France.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Members>China/France>Other Countries (Alphabetically) is the most rational way to order it. If for some reason another country becomes very impacted by this pact we can add them to the China/France bracket. BSMRD (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • You cannot dissociate France from the EU. France is not fully sovereign and the EU will tend to protect its members. A consequence of the crisis may also be increased EU self-sufficiency. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • You cannot dissociate France from NATO if a consequence of the crisis may be the weakening of NATO. That said, a Five Eyes bond is stronger than a NATO bond. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd be okay with Members>China/France>Other countries (alphabetically). Otherwise, purely alphabetically, or by date of response. There's more than one way to write this section. But it should not be France, France, and more France.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • As it is now seems most logical. The members in their own top-level section. Then Responses: China & France with subheadings, then Others ordered alphabetically. Best reflects the scale of coverage these reactions have received in sources. the wub "?!" 17:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Nuclear French submarines advantages keep being removed

The advantages of increased nuclear safety, not promoting proliferation, and allowing for fast refueling and repairing keep being removed. The disadvantages of US sealed designs have also been removed. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

As the French nuclear submarine option was not selected by Australia/AUKUS, probably more relevant to globalise the nuclear submarine article and expand the articles about the various French classes of submarines. Whizz40 (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
It is valid to criticize Australia going for UK/US technology unless France denied nuclear submarines to Australia. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
From what I understand, Australia did not consider the French submarines to be superior and therefore went with the US/UK. There's not much more to say that is relevant than that in this article. However, there is relevant content about French submarines missing from the nuclear submarines article and perhaps Nuclear marine propulsion. Better to focus on improving those article where the content definitely justifies inclusion. Whizz40 (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
It does not matter if the US/UK submarines are better in some other way. Sealed, HEU submarines are not acceptable and an attempt should have been made to use French technology. Also, nuclear sharing may be a future option with US/UK combat systems, while France does not share nuclear weapons and AFAIK they have none for attack submarines, which may calm down the Chinese a bit. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Now Turkey wants to build submarines with Russia, but no details yet. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what turkey has to do with AUKUs or how it's relevant.2A01:598:A906:C3A5:1:2:4AD9:7923 (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
If Turkey ends up getting HEU submarines, it is relevant. It might also leave the door open to one day carrying Russian-owned nuclear weapons, the dual of Australia. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
And if it does, then we can reopen this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The time to close Pandora's Box is now. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
What has a greek myth got to do with French submarines?Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Selling nuclear attack submarines with French reactors and combat systems to Australia currently have 3 arguments against opening a Pandora's Box. Replacing them with current US/UK technology have 3 points in favor. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Seriously I have no idea what point you think you are making.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Trigenibinion, I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding you here - but your comments here read like your own (strong) POV, rather than comment on the article. What Turkey does with respect to submarines is totally irrelevant to this article. Mark83 (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It it's not a POV. If the US sells HEU submarines to Australia, it gives an excuse to everyone else to go for naval HEU. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Why? Why would they not also...this is all very wp:or. Unless RS discusses this we cannot.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The naval HEU issue is not wp:or, as my references have already shown. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
And do they mention Turkey (And AUKUS, do they connect these issues)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The risk concerns any country that does not possess their own nuclear weapons. I'm not saying we should talk about Turkey now, as they have not stated their plans. What should be mentioned or implied in the article is why going for US/UK combat systems and their current reactor tech is dangerous. The nuclear Tomahawk was retired (but it could come back), and the US is now defunding its replacement, which the current president called a "bad idea". One should not assume that future governments will behave responsibly.
Some newspaper articles now discuss the HEU problem in the context of AUKUS. The article already contains a proliferation issues section, but one editor has kept removing any content that implies that Australia should have tried to get French technology first. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Then we need to drop talking about Turkey.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Trigenibinion, at a glance I think you're an experienced editor so I shouldn't have to explain this to you - content must be verifiable. It seems like you are taking seperate issues and deciding they are interlinked without any reliable source to prove that. Mark83 (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Go read the French page, it has not been censored like this one. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
YOu read to really read wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The content that was removed from the English article only stated technical facts, as the French article does. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
That does not mean we are censoring this page, rather we may have different perspectives or priorities to those who edit the French page (which may even have different policies to the English Wiki). Talk about the edits you want to make, do not impune other editor's motives. Or fly off on tangents like the Turkish waste of everyone's time.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

So back on topic, please place here an RS that discusses the superior safety or reliability of the French subs Vs the ones Oz is now getting.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It is only one safety criterion, and I was not talking about the reliability, but rather the serviceability (attempting to do the same with HEU might be considered a security risk). I will look into it later. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove subsection on US deployment in Australia

The AUKUS pact is for sharing information on science, technology and industry. The pact didn't announce that the size and type of US military based in Australia would be increased or that the UK military would be based in Australia. The pact was announced on the 15 September US time. Separately, the annual Joint Statement Australia-U.S. Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) was held the following day on the 16th in which it was announced the size of the US military based in Australia would be increased. The meeting endorsed recommendations made in May 2021 to increase the size but did not release any details with US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin saying "we will continue to explore" and "which I won’t go into today". The answer by Austin that AUKUS does not have specific reciprocal requirements such as Australia hosting intermediate range missiles mentioned in the subsection, and cited by The Guardian, is relevant and can be retained elsewhere in the article. AUSMIN endorsed increasing logistics and sustainment capabilities of U.S. subsurface vessels in Australia which is relevant. Increasing the size of the US deployment can be mentioned in the following articles: Australia–United States relations, Australian Defence Force, Marine Rotational Force – Darwin, Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force.--Melbguy05 (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed subsection keeping intermediate range missiles moved to Long-range guided missiles subsection.--Melbguy05 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. Prime Minister of Australia Scott Morrison; Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson; President of the United States of America Joseph R. Biden (16 September 2021). "Joint Leaders Statement on AUKUS". Prime Minister of Australia (Press release). Retrieved 25 September 2021.
  2. Prime Minister of Australia Scott Morrison; Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson; President of the United States of America Joseph R. Biden (15 September 2021). "Remarks by President Biden, Prime Minister Morrison of Australia, and Prime Minister Johnson of the United Kingdom Announcing the Creation of AUKUS". The White House. Retrieved 2 October 2021.
  3. Prime Minister; Minister for Defence; Minister for Foreign Affairs; Minister for Women (16 September 2021). "Australia to pursue Nuclear-powered Submarines through new Trilateral Enhanced Security Partnership". Prime Minister of Australia (Press release). Retrieved 25 September 2021.
  4. "Joint Statement on Australia-U.S. Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) 2021". U.S. Department of State (Press release). 16 September 2021. Retrieved 2 October 2021.
  5. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken; US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin; Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne; Australian Defence Minister Peter Dutton (16 September 2021). "Secretary Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne, and Australian Defence Minister Peter Dutton At a Joint Press Availability". U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved 2 October 2021.

Cite error

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The ref Barrett was deleted, but was in use elsewhere.

In the Other Countries section under Other

The first instance of:
<ref name="Barrett" />

Should be replaced with:
<ref name="Barrett">{{cite news |last1=Barrett |first1=Chris |title=Australia's nuclear sub deal 'gravely undermines regional peace' says China |url=https://www.theage.com.au/world/asia/australia-s-nuclear-sub-deal-gravely-undermines-regional-peace-says-china-20210916-p58sbk.html |access-date=16 September 2021 |work=The Age |publisher=Nine Newspapers |date=16 September 2021 |archive-date=16 September 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210916084603/https://www.theage.com.au/world/asia/australia-s-nuclear-sub-deal-gravely-undermines-regional-peace-says-china-20210916-p58sbk.html |url-status=live }}</ref>


Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 Done DigitalChutney (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you 89.241.33.89 (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:AUKUS Add topic